Appellants employed William Burkey in Costa Rica
pursuant to an Employment and Confidentiality Agreement, from November 15,
2005, through December 31, 2008. Burkey sued Appellants in the Charleston
County Court of Common Pleas, alleging the following causes of action: breach
of contract, fraudulent breach of contract accompanied by fraudulent act,
defamation, breach of employment contract in violation of clear mandate of
public policy, South Carolina Payment of Wages Act, and declaratory relief
invalidating unlawful and unenforceable covenant. Appellants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint pursuant to principles of forum non conveniens and
multiple Rule 12(b), SCRCP, grounds. The circuit court held a motions hearing
on the matters. The circuit court subsequently denied all motions to dismiss
in a written order.[2]
This appeal followed.

LAW/ANALYSIS

Section 14-3-330 of the South Carolina
Code (1977 & Supp. 2011) limits this court's ability to hear appeals.
Only final judgments and certain interlocutory orders are appealable. Id.
An interlocutory order is not immediately appealable unless it involves the
merits of the case or affects a substantial right. Id. While
no South Carolina case law concerns the immediate appealability of a denial of
dismissal based specifically on forum non conveniens, our courts have ruled on
the appealability of other denials of motions to dismiss. Generally, the
denial of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, is not immediately
appealable. Huntley v. Young, 319 S.C. 559, 560, 462 S.E.2d 860, 861
(1995). "[T]he denial of a motion to dismiss [based on statute of
limitations] is not directly appealable . . . ." McLendon v. S.C. Dep't
of Highways & Pub. Transp., 313 S.C. 525, 526 n.2, 443 S.E.2d 539, 540
n.2 (1994). An order denying a motion to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is also not directly
appealable. Allison v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., 394 S.C. 185, 188, 714
S.E.2d 547, 549 (2011). Additionally, an order denying a motion to change
venue is not immediately appealable. Breland v. Love Chevrolet Olds, Inc.,
339 S.C. 89, 95, 529 S.E.2d 11, 14 (2000).

Moreover, the United States Supreme
Court has expressly ruled that federal court litigants cannot immediately
appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens. Van
Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 527 (1988). In Van Cauwenberghe,
the petitioner argued the district court's order denying his motion to dismiss
on the ground of forum non conveniens fell within the collateral order doctrine,
and thus, was immediately appealable. Id. The Supreme Court held that
the question of the convenience of the forum is not "completely separate
from the merits of the action," and thus, is not
immediately appealable as of right. Id. (quoting Coopers &
Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978)). Additionally,
other courts have addressed the issue and have held the denial of a motion to
dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens is not immediately appealable. SeeKing v. Cessna
Aircraft Co.,
562 F.3d 1374, 1378-81 (11th Cir. 2009) (finding the denial of a motion to
dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens is not a final, appealable order); Rosenstein
v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 769 F.2d 352, 354 (6th Cir. 1985) (holding the
denial of a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is not
immediately appealable under collateral order exception to final judgment rule); Rolinski
v. Lewis, 828 A.2d 739, 742 (D.C. 2003) (holding that denials of forum non
conveniens motions to dismiss are not immediately appealable as of right); Payton-Henderson
v. Evans, 949 A.2d 654, 662 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.
2008) (stating forum non conveniens issues are treated the same as change of
venue and the denial of either is not immediately appealable). After a careful
analysis of section 14-3-330 and the authority cited herein, we find the denial
of Appellants' motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens is not
immediately appealable.[3]

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is

DISMISSED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.

[2] Appellants are only appealing the denial of the
motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens.